Damn! Georgia is one F-CKED up state! (Child Rape Ruling)

just saw on MSNBC a story about a 17 y.o. who received a BJ from a 15 y.o. at a new year's eve party. even the girl's MOTHER testified that it was consensual on the girl's part. side note: all parties say the girl had NO ALCOHOL OR DRUGS.

anyway, in GA, 15 is a CHILD. so....

the 17 y.o. gets 10 YEARS for essentially CHILD RAPE for receiving a BJ from a consensual 15 y.o. AND is a sex offender for life.

flame away folks but this is one fucked up law.

insane.

:hide:

You know, brother and sister, or cousins maybe....

I mean, it's Georgia.

:shrug:

rednecks and illiterates myself.

I have a 17 year old stepdaughter who is a high school junior and who also lives in GA. The most disturbing thing about the oral sex trend is that it seems to be the boys that are on the receiving end (as it were) and the girls who are most at risk for STDs. :(

another think coming...

It's true that this is an unlikely way to get, say, HIV, but it's quite possible to get herpes or gonorrhea in such a manner...

I remember seeing some special about a year or so ago about teens and oral sex on MSNBC (where they go to parties and stuff) and they don't even consider it sex since you're not "going in" and all that.

for every BJ i got in high school, i'd be doing a few thousands years in the clinck right now. (not that i'm bragging or anything) :evilgrin:

Stupid Law!!

and having been a life-long southerner, I've got to tell you...that was funny. I caught the sarcasm.

I know a guy (from West Virginia, not Georgia, but it happens here, too) who had two children by his first wife. She divorced him and married her FIRST COUSIN. No lie. He jokingly speaks the absolute truth when he says that his two children now have Aunt Grandma and Uncle Grandpa.

:o

They'll let him go

They pump kin. Sorry its out of my system now. BTW liberal people from Georgia rock.

:evilgrin: :evilgrin:

Why thank you (and it is a screwed up law, but I think GA's embarrasment over its incestuous past is part of what drives us to make the sex offender laws so strict).

-Laelth

DanCa, you always come up with some good ones. And, thank you for the "you rock" statement.

:yourock:

Like some klansman never made it with his sister in some hilltown in Georgia(no offense to progessive Georgia-ns). Probably the judge in the case.

We have a Republican governor and Republican majority state assembly now.

In any case, this law is neither Republican or Democratic. We can discuss changin the law without disparaging the good citizens of our state which is one of the 13 original states and the largest state east of the Mississippi.

I think that maybe changing sexual practices and social attitudes are not in step with the laws on the book. I have a teenage stepdaughter and I don't like the thought of her having any sort of sex with any boy or man.

edit: Zell Miller has nothing to do with this case. Forget about him. He was an OK Democratic governor for whom I voted.

:popcorn:

As for me, I agree with matcom. This is insane.

No, 15 year old girls shouldn't be out there doing blow jobs, but that's not our decision, is it?

Kids that age need to be off limits except to other kids, and I think a three year age difference should be about it.

The problem with that law is that it doesn't exempt consensual activity between age peers.

It could only have been written by a conservative.

both the boys and girls.

But it is worse for gay kids. They get longer sentences for consensual sex.

than "regular" sex

If they're the same age and do consensual sex they go to prison?!

The older boy was over 18 and the younger one was 14.

The older boy was sentenced to 15 years but they finally reduced it and let him out just a month ago. It went all the way to the state supreme court.

and if they are different... :grr:

know nothing about the girl

The mother testifies? There are just so many levels of wrong in this piece! This kid's life is ruined at 17 because of this? Unbelievable.

And it's one Democrats get blamed for because feminists pushed for laws to stop young girls from being taken advantage of. Nineteen year old males should leave young girls alone. But it's gone too far when they put statutory rape in the same category as child molestation and rape. And this poor kid wasn't even an adult himself, which is probably part of the problem too, making 17 year olds adults.

Who ratted them out? How'd he get arrested? Man, that's some serious fucked up shit right there.

apparently

someone would probably get the death penalty.

This is why there needs to be SANITY in these kinds of laws. There's a huge difference between a 40 year old molesting a 13 year old and a 17 & 15 year old engaging in consensual behavior.

A friend of mine has a neighbor whose son got a sex offender record for much less. He was a life guard and the girl was 15 but certainly looked older, especially with how much she was showing with her swimsuit (it just revealed alot). There was fondling, no bj, etc. Now he is labelled because her fundie mother was outraged.

If this keeps up, the term "sex offender" won't mean anything anymore. It'll be another "so what" crime when it should put people on the alert.

before she turned 16. And her parents were fundies.

The mind reels.

There are real crimes with sex offenders out there. Just because some fundie mother gets upset her daughter is kissing a boy doesn't mean they can go and ruin the kids life like that!!

that a couple can legally have sex because both are BELOW the age of consent, and later because both are ABOVE the age of consent, but there may be a few days or months in between where it's statutory rape punishable by 10 years or whatever.

now, of course, statutory rape as it was intended to cover, say, a 40 year old who knows better and a 15 year old who got conned, that's no laughing matter.

although, so is Megan's Law. If you're going to have a public file on sex offenders, you should have one on rapists, murderers, burglars, arsonists, peeping toms, vandalizers, drunks, druggies, ect.

Just let everyone know what everyone in the neighborhood has been arrested for.

of criminal, how about reserving the label for ACTUAL sex offenders, and not the 17 year old boy who has consensual sex with the 15 year old girl...

That phrase I heard as a kid applied to 18 year olds just as much as it did to 40 year olds.

18 year old Seniors in HS dating 16 yr. old Juniors or Sophomores was hardly a wildly uncommon phenomenon back when I was growing up.

case by case. a sham and a shame and hurts the real pediphiles that need to be in jail and pray on our girls and boys

understatement. Can't help wondering if the 15 year old is white.


Meanwhile pretty white teachers escape with minor penalties.

Edit - add.

This sounds a lot like the Dixon case of a few years back.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/13/findlaw.analysis.colb.statutory.rape/

:shrug:

...but the DA who brought the charges should be...

I tend to agree that we have overreacted, as a society, to some of these offenses, but I'd like to comment one case at a time. The DA may have had no choice.

and quickly married in the driveway, the state of Georgia would be protecting them, even without parental knowledge or permission.

It's similar, in concept, to the law that minors cannot enter into contracts because the law presumes them unable to give legal consent. In this context, even though everyone swore it was consensual, under the law a minor CANNOT consent to such action.

Got a 17 year old son or daughter? Tell him/her not to mess with younger kids.

You can say it's a f***ed up law but it's the law in most states. Where would you draw the line, if it's OK for a 15 year-old? Don't like the law? Write to your state legislator.

Bake, Esq.

do not support 15 year olds engaging in sexual activity. I'd have to ask, if the parents agree that it was consenual, were they there and were they participating? If so, shame on them, they should be the ones charged. If not how do they know it was consenual? Because the kids told them ? How do they know thegirl wasn't forced into it? There could have been all sorts of intimidation.

mine is behind the roller-skating rink doing all SORTS of things with Susan B. :eyes:

Now take a cold shower, sicko.

15 year-olds are not mature enough to make decisions about sexual intercourse, especially when an older person can easily manipulate them using intimidation, power, force, peer-pressure, maturity.

IMHO

15 is pretty mature in many cases

Does it depend on what the 15-year-old wears? What if she still collects pokemon cards? What if she consents? What if she consents with a 25 year old, or a 35 year old? Or a 50 year old? Where is your line? What if she is a mature 14 year old? What if a 14-year-old had a really hard life--and was more mature than most 15-year-olds? Should it be ok? Or, would it be taking advantage of her because she would be more vulnerable due to her hard life?

What makes one 15-year-old more mature than others? If she had been raped before--and therefore more prone to consent to sex, should it be ok?

If not a bright-line at the age of 15...then what are the parameters?

And what about voting / drinking / entering the service / driving? Should those lines also vary, depending on maturity level?

Does it depend on what the 18-year-old wears? What if she still collects teddy bears? What if she consents? What if she consents with a 25 year old, or a 35 year old? Or a 50 year old? Where is your line? What if she is a mature 18 year old? What if a 18-year-old had a really hard life--and was more mature than most 18-year-olds? Should it be ok? Or, would it be taking advantage of her because she would be more vulnerable due to her hard life?

What makes one 19-year-old more mature than others? If she had been raped before--and therefore more prone to consent to sex, should it be ok?

If not a bright-line at the age of 20...then what are the parameters?

There are of course exceptions recognized by the law. For example what if the 18 year-old was developmentally disabled? the law recognizes those issues and accounts for them.

The bottom line is that a 15 year-old is too immature (no matter how big her boobs / or his dick are) to consent to sexual intercourse. In WA there must be 48 months difference in age. I agree with WA law. Therefore, this case would not be a crime. But, if a 20 year-old had sex with a 15 year-old, it would be a crime in WA.

and that is hardly something new.

I agree that when you have a large age difference the situation is a different one.. but getting all up in arms because HS students are having sex with each other... is a giant waste of time IMHO, even without the monsterously moronic notion of getting "The Law" involved.

When older adults get involved that is when the police step in. As I stated before, in WA it is not a crime to have sex with a 15 year-old unless there is force or lack of consent, or 48 months difference in age.

However, you said that a "15 year old isn't capable of consent". Be that as it may, yes, lots of 15 year olds are having sex with each other.-- I guess they're just not consenting to it.

I meant that in the context of our conversation. They are not capable by law of consenting to a sexual act with an older person.

we are discussing another TEEN (defined by law)

and i say yes they ARE capable!

society needs to change, NOT the horny teens

I do not believe a 17 year-old should be convicted of rape if he did not use force and the act was consenual if there was less than 4 years difference in their ages.

So, the 17 year-old should not be having sex with someone younger than 14.

A 15 year-old should not be having sex with someone older than 19.

And a 40 year old should not be having sex with a minor!

Jail bait.

It's clearer now.

I'm rubber and you're glue

... but "voting / drinking / entering the service / driving", requires some type of documentation. How do you do that on a hot, sophomoric night? I'm more of a "no means no" kind of guy.

And everyone knew it was wrong to have sex with a kid. You are right: a hot sophomoric night, booze, hormones, peer pressure.

Wow. Good thing the statute of limitations is long over.

Lucky you! It's a three-year statute of limitations!

it's been a long time since I saw a 15 yr old in pigtails looking innocent (not saying there aren't any, it's just rare). Most look/act like they're in their 30's these days. Hell, we even looked/acted like that in my day (70's).. lol.

I didn't hang out too much at the skating rink... but boy there are some field parties I vaguely remember.

I suspect a teen from another country has more maturity and expects more of themselves than do teens in the US.

15 is not the same as being EIGHT.

I can tell you with confidence that she was at least as emotionally mature as I was.

We were married when I was 21 and she was 19. We've been married 25 years.

10 years in jail for what they did is crazy.

and sending a 17 year old kid to prison for 10 years for it.

You think 15 year olds aren't having sex? They sure as hell were back in my day, when I was growing up in the relatively staid midwest.

and the victim must either 14 or 15 years of age. So, the case you cite would not be a crime in WA as there is not 48 months difference in age.

Like I said, there's a big difference between a 17 year old and a 15 year old fooling around, and a 40 year old and a 15 year old.

There do have to be lines drawn somewhere, though. Although it might seem to make sense to examine these cases on a case by case basis, perhaps that is the problem to begin with. Some cases are not prosecuted while others receive the maximum penalty. The children most harmed might not seem to be as harmed at the time of the trial. The victim coerced into sex might be coerced into testimony. Young adults seeing their friends getting away with sex with young teens might think that it is no big deal and then end up like this boy. On the otherhand, I have known couples who have had illegal sex under these laws that ended up in a loving marriage or long term relationship. On the otherhand, there are young teens who are being taken advantage of, who have suffered and have been told that they are the ones at fault, that they should have known better at 15, 14, 13, 12,..., that people that age have consensual sex all the time.
Yes, if I had a teen, I would have a talk with them about whatever the laws are in the state and have them know that they could face criminal charges if they violate them.

The boys were "children too". Anyone here have an explanation?

Don't even look into our more domestic politics if you're disgusted with this one gem.

playing around at 14.

:grr::crazy::banghead:

sentencing. :shrug:

I personally know of a case like that in Wisconsin. That's about all I can say on the matter.

just curious.

Or can say that, at age 17, they should have been sent to prison for 10 years for this kind of thing?

I want to know if these guys would feel the same if they were talking about their own 15 year old daughter.

And I know cause I have lived it with my boyfriend's daughters. 15 CAN be way too young for girls to get sexually active.

Particularly one where someone should go to prison for 10 years.

When I was 17, there were a few months during which my High School girlfriend was 15, before she turned 16. Was I a criminal? NO. Did I do anything "wrong", for being involved with her and engaging in the consensual stuff we did? FUCK NO. And I'm sure as shit not going to start apologizing for it at this late date, either.

No parent "wants" their teenage kids to be sexually active. Again, that's a far cry from saying that a 17 year old boy who engages in CONSENSUAL sex with a 15 year old girl should be sent to prison for 10 years. I don't have a daughter that age, but I do have nieces that I helped raise who were that age once. I understand the impulse to 'protect' kids, particularly teenage girls. But I also understand the fallacy of these 'just say no' abstinence jihadis- teenagers DO have sex, and a 15 year old girl with a 17 year old boy is hardly anything new, shocking, or inherently exploitative.

Now, please, answer MY question. If you had a 17 year old son, would you consider it 'justice' for him to go to
PRISON for 10 years for this act?

and the kid could have priors. We don't have enough facts to decide.

I'd wager THAT has something to do with it.

But, yes, lets wait until we hear the story. That said, however, I don't think 10 years probation is appropriate, either. I just don't consider 17 and 15 to be a criminal combination for consensual, non-coercive, mutually agreed upon sex, sorry. If it is, there have been a LOT of criminals running around this nations high schools, past and present.

and I think that 10 years is a little harsh. This could have been handled in a much better way, IMHO.

What should the precise age of consent be and on what do we base this?

Do we "decide" if an eleven or twelve (or thirteen or fourteen or...) year old is "mature" enough to realize the consequences of their actions on a case by case by case by case (...) basis?

Or do we say there is an age-window (if their ages are within say, two years of each other) and if so, on what do we base the differential?

Further, based on the previous question, what is the relevant moral difference between the fifteen year old girl with her boyfriend who is seventeen, and the same girl with her boyfriend who is forty-four?

From where I sit, we either set an arbitrary age or we set no age limits at all.

between a 15 year old having sex with a 17 year old, and a 40 year old having sex with a 14 year old.

If the 15 year old in this case had had sex with a 14 year old, who would be the criminal? BOTH of them?

It sounds to me like the law in Washington State, ref. elsewhere in the thread, is a little more sane.

I'm wondering what the moral difference is, though-- above and beyond any legal distinction. What precisely is the moral difference between a 50-year old man having sex with a 15-year old girl, and a 17-year old having sex with the same girl?

On what are we basing this distinction that we all (or, many) appear to make?

You asked, "If the 15 year old in this case had had sex with a 14 year old, who would be the criminal? BOTH of them?" However, if we decide that there is no criminal in this case, how do we make a moral distinction when we morally or legally chastise the 50 year old who has sex with the 14 year old?

a 17 year old having sex with a 15 year old, and a 40 year old having sex with a 15 year old?

If you can't figure it out, I can't explain it to you. I guess you never went to High School.

As for a legal distinction, it would seem that it most certainly CAN be made, at least according to another poster in the thread, re: the law in WA.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5703838&mesg_id=5704600

I thank you for your informative and very polite response.

(Just as an aside, I was focusing on the moral rather than the legal AND moral distinctions; however, I thank you for your pains in posting the irrelevant thread address...)

While they see usually see teens a few years older as peers.
Children tend to see adults as authority figures. They are trained to obey adults and believe that what an adult thinks is right is right. This is especially true of what they believe about adults who they trust and believe care about them.
Sometime in a child's teens or early adulthood, they start seeing most adults as peers.
A teenager who has gone through puberty but still has an authority like respect for adults that seem to care about them is in a vunerable position. Adults that would take advantage of a teen in this phase are immoral.
A teen a couple years older is probably not seen as a person in a position of authority or special respect. There are things that the older teen can do to take advantage of the younger teen that an older person would be less likely to fall for due to worldly experience. If the older teen lies or coerces the younger teen into sex, the older teen is being immoral. The older teen is not being immoral by merely participating in sex with the younger teen though, at least at the ages we are talking about. The adult is being immoral because the adult is being passively coercive by just being a respected person of authority.

is that it would be a rare 15 year old who could say "No" to a demand for sex from a 50 year old because of the status and power differential between them. If it is impossible to meaningfully say "No," then saying "Yes" is not a choice that is freely made.

The same cannot be said between a 15 year old and a 17 year old.

I agree with the principles of the Georgia law, but if there isn't an age difference test there needs to be one - and one that is larger than 2 years. Four years (as in the WA law) makes some sense because most high schools span 4 years. That would avoid criminalizing consensual sex between high school students (in most instances).

I think the young lady should have been prosecuted for (illegally) administering the act.

Wake up.

The truth is the kids were doin' it in the '50's and doin' it in the '20's and doin' it in 1880 and doin' it in 500 B.C. If you haven't figured this out yet, you are - I am so sorry to tell you - a retard.

This law was applied recklessly here. The boy is getting the brunt of the punishment.

My question is, if everyone agrees it was consensual, why wasn't this handled by the parents of the kids? Why did they feel some need to spread their dirty laundry all over the world?

The only info I can find on sex b/t a 15 yr old and a 17 yr old in GA is that the legislature recently made it a misdemeanor. A 10 yr sentence would be in violation of the only GA law I can find on the issue.

Truly, a link would be helpful.

and haven't looked for one. saw it on MSNBC around 4:00 pm this afternoon.

http://www.ageofconsent.com/georgia.htm

next time you ask me for a blow job, I'm calling the cops on your ass!!!

:hi:

Thank God I'm finally married. I've always wanted to visit Athens.

I met my first wife when I was 17 and she was 15.

Rather than call the cops, my future MIL ordered birth control and tried to get to know me to find out if I was a good person.

I'm nowhere near Georgia, but that law is messed up.

I totally agree. What do you expect from a state named after the King against whom we fought for our independence, and from the state that gave us the honorable? Zell Miller, and SUXby Chambliss.

Hey, we do have Max Cleland, though, so maybe there is SOME hope.